The old way worked, if properly used. So does the new way. The poster above just pointed out what he saw as a flaw in the old way, I countered that this was due to improper use. The new way would suffer the same problem if the same mistake were made.
There is often a rush in technology to always run ahead and grab the latest, shiniest technology. Even if this means abandoning something that has been in use for years and been through extensive testing and polishing. I just think that before abandoning an old approach for a new one, the new one must first demonstrate compelling advantages to justify starting over.
Bookmarks! I liked the ability to bookmark a page, and go back to exactly where I left off, because the URL alone specified exactly what I was to see. Frames broke that, and then script-based navigation systems broke it even more.
"I remember websites that limited me to 1000 chars of text because their backend couldn't handle any more."
That's poor site design, not a limitation of the method.
"No. I did not enjoy typing a metric shitload of text into a form, only for the 56k modem to stutter, or the server to wobble, and lose the lot."
That still happens. Except now you don't get a nice error page you can click 'back' on, and you can't even save your text via copy-paste because the script helpfully hides the text element as soon as you click 'submit.'
"Dragging and dropping files onto a webpage is one of those things I really like these days."
When it works. If your web browser and file manager are properly communicating. And you're no a device that can do dragdrop, not a tablet or phone, and you're not using an accessibility device that makes dragging cumbersome or impossible.
And I'd be just as happy if that 'reply to this' link took me to reply.pl?parent=44090853, where I'd get a plain old form I could type my reply into.It may be old fashioned, but it'd run on every browser on every platform, even those with scripting disabled.
Does anyone else long for the days when you could make a decent website without needing half a megabyte of javascript, a database engine and some horrendous mishmash of AJAX? When people were happy to submit things via a form element and accept a page refresh, rather than require some code screwing around in the DOM? The time when things just worked, every time, when you could browse the internet in text mode. When images were images, not javascript-powered adverts jumping out at you.
If you need anything more then HTML, CSS and forms, I hope you have a very good justification.
Not true. As a form of extreme libertarian, objectivists are strongly opposed to government spying on everyone.
They have no objection to corporations spying on everyone though - and would oppose any measure to stop corporations doing so as an unjust interference in commerce.
Objectivism just exchanges government oppression for corporate oppression.
Then you'd better have a sustainable life support system, because you're never coming back down, and they won't be letting any supplies go up. If you want to play supervillain, make sure you have enough handy rocks to terrify the whole world. And failsafe deorbiting rockets, so they won't be tempted to sneak a bomb onto a supply rocket and blow it after docking.
That's work if you can live in space long-term. But this isn't a space colonisation scenario (we can but dream), it's a space industry scenario. If you break the law in space, there's nothing to stop law enforcement from seizing your assets back on the ground.
The experts may agree, but the vast majority are not experts. Remember that more than half of the population of the US believes the world was created six thousand years ago. Experts don't make decisions, politicians do, and politicians represent the people. If the people are a bunch of uneducated hicks convinced that Jesus is going to descent from on high Any Day Now, why would they plan more than a few years ahead?
It takes only a few seconds of googling to find the essay to which you refer, but I fail to see what argument you are making from it. Perhaps you wish to argue that the money not spent on the space race following it's end was instead used to other benefit by the government, or permitted a lowering of taxes and thus encouraged economic success in private industry - but a quick glance at the sheer size of the US military tells where the money really ended up.
Politicians, like humans in general, do not make rational economic choices based on an informed cost-benefit analysis. This isn't a choice between spending money vs not spending money. The money is going to get spent, somewhere.
Also, the NSA is supposed to be protecting national security, not acting as law enforcement. If you're using Tor to hide your financial scams, trade drugs or amass a collection of illegal pornography then it is none of their business to investigate.
The US military is also a significant sponsor of NASCAR and pro-wrestling. One congressman propose an amendment to the recent defense bill to put an end to that, but it was rejected by vote after supporters of the sponsorship argued it was a cost-effective recruiting tool.
You can use Tor for torrents, but speed is absolutely terrible. There are few exit nodes, all of them overloaded, and most of them block torrent ports.
Or is it that there are only two levers to pull? The two parties work together to make sure no independent or third-party candidate ever gains enough power to threaten their duopoly.
Yes. It'd probably need a combination approach: A long, long session or series of sessions in the scanner to collect a lot of functional information, followed by removing the brain for a slice-and-scan to get some of the finer details. The patient may not survive, but if the patient has a terminal disease already... why not?
On her, no way it's possible. The brain went too long between death and digitisation - no oxygen means rapid and extreme damage. Even if the scan were good enough to get synapse-level tracing (It isn't), it wouldn't run.
Give it a few more decades though, maybe as much as a century. There's nothing scientifically impossible about it - it's just an engineering challenge. I imagine you'd need to resort to either nondestructive living readout (Future super-MRI?) or some sort of preservation process (Cryonic or chemical).
Senses can be simulated too. Just wire up to a robot, or a simulated environment.
The NET act made it even easier. It makes all commercial electronic copyright infringement criminal - but defines commercial as including an expectation of receiving infringing works in return. So basically, p2p.
Slashdot Mirror
How about 'land of more-free-than-most, but-not-as-free-as-some?'
You'd never get the orbits to work out for any craft with a halfway-decent journey time though.
The old way worked, if properly used. So does the new way. The poster above just pointed out what he saw as a flaw in the old way, I countered that this was due to improper use. The new way would suffer the same problem if the same mistake were made.
There is often a rush in technology to always run ahead and grab the latest, shiniest technology. Even if this means abandoning something that has been in use for years and been through extensive testing and polishing. I just think that before abandoning an old approach for a new one, the new one must first demonstrate compelling advantages to justify starting over.
Bookmarks! I liked the ability to bookmark a page, and go back to exactly where I left off, because the URL alone specified exactly what I was to see. Frames broke that, and then script-based navigation systems broke it even more.
"I remember websites that limited me to 1000 chars of text because their backend couldn't handle any more."
That's poor site design, not a limitation of the method.
"No. I did not enjoy typing a metric shitload of text into a form, only for the 56k modem to stutter, or the server to wobble, and lose the lot."
That still happens. Except now you don't get a nice error page you can click 'back' on, and you can't even save your text via copy-paste because the script helpfully hides the text element as soon as you click 'submit.'
"Dragging and dropping files onto a webpage is one of those things I really like these days."
When it works. If your web browser and file manager are properly communicating. And you're no a device that can do dragdrop, not a tablet or phone, and you're not using an accessibility device that makes dragging cumbersome or impossible.
I do like the video element, simply because it's a very common thing to want in a page and now can be done without an ugly plugin.
And I'd be just as happy if that 'reply to this' link took me to reply.pl?parent=44090853, where I'd get a plain old form I could type my reply into.It may be old fashioned, but it'd run on every browser on every platform, even those with scripting disabled.
Does anyone else long for the days when you could make a decent website without needing half a megabyte of javascript, a database engine and some horrendous mishmash of AJAX? When people were happy to submit things via a form element and accept a page refresh, rather than require some code screwing around in the DOM? The time when things just worked, every time, when you could browse the internet in text mode. When images were images, not javascript-powered adverts jumping out at you.
If you need anything more then HTML, CSS and forms, I hope you have a very good justification.
Not true. As a form of extreme libertarian, objectivists are strongly opposed to government spying on everyone.
They have no objection to corporations spying on everyone though - and would oppose any measure to stop corporations doing so as an unjust interference in commerce.
Objectivism just exchanges government oppression for corporate oppression.
Then you'd better have a sustainable life support system, because you're never coming back down, and they won't be letting any supplies go up. If you want to play supervillain, make sure you have enough handy rocks to terrify the whole world. And failsafe deorbiting rockets, so they won't be tempted to sneak a bomb onto a supply rocket and blow it after docking.
Who is John Galt?
I heard he was on a flight to Equador, as they have shown some willingness to protect whistleblowers sought by the US.
That's work if you can live in space long-term. But this isn't a space colonisation scenario (we can but dream), it's a space industry scenario. If you break the law in space, there's nothing to stop law enforcement from seizing your assets back on the ground.
The experts may agree, but the vast majority are not experts. Remember that more than half of the population of the US believes the world was created six thousand years ago. Experts don't make decisions, politicians do, and politicians represent the people. If the people are a bunch of uneducated hicks convinced that Jesus is going to descent from on high Any Day Now, why would they plan more than a few years ahead?
You'll have to block the tracking cookies too, otherwise the government will just ask the companies for the information.
It takes only a few seconds of googling to find the essay to which you refer, but I fail to see what argument you are making from it. Perhaps you wish to argue that the money not spent on the space race following it's end was instead used to other benefit by the government, or permitted a lowering of taxes and thus encouraged economic success in private industry - but a quick glance at the sheer size of the US military tells where the money really ended up.
Politicians, like humans in general, do not make rational economic choices based on an informed cost-benefit analysis. This isn't a choice between spending money vs not spending money. The money is going to get spent, somewhere.
If you're going to have an arms race, it might as well be in an area with significent civilian applications.
Shame the space race died once America made target and the USSR fell apart. If that had kept going, we'd be living in apartments on Mars by now.
Also, the NSA is supposed to be protecting national security, not acting as law enforcement. If you're using Tor to hide your financial scams, trade drugs or amass a collection of illegal pornography then it is none of their business to investigate.
The US military is also a significant sponsor of NASCAR and pro-wrestling. One congressman propose an amendment to the recent defense bill to put an end to that, but it was rejected by vote after supporters of the sponsorship argued it was a cost-effective recruiting tool.
You can use Tor for torrents, but speed is absolutely terrible. There are few exit nodes, all of them overloaded, and most of them block torrent ports.
Or is it that there are only two levers to pull? The two parties work together to make sure no independent or third-party candidate ever gains enough power to threaten their duopoly.
Yes. It'd probably need a combination approach: A long, long session or series of sessions in the scanner to collect a lot of functional information, followed by removing the brain for a slice-and-scan to get some of the finer details. The patient may not survive, but if the patient has a terminal disease already... why not?
On her, no way it's possible. The brain went too long between death and digitisation - no oxygen means rapid and extreme damage. Even if the scan were good enough to get synapse-level tracing (It isn't), it wouldn't run.
Give it a few more decades though, maybe as much as a century. There's nothing scientifically impossible about it - it's just an engineering challenge. I imagine you'd need to resort to either nondestructive living readout (Future super-MRI?) or some sort of preservation process (Cryonic or chemical).
Senses can be simulated too. Just wire up to a robot, or a simulated environment.
It probably means there are no laws specifically addressing this situation.
The NET act made it even easier. It makes all commercial electronic copyright infringement criminal - but defines commercial as including an expectation of receiving infringing works in return. So basically, p2p.